For Global Peace with Social Justice in a Sustainable Environment

Ahimsa and Mahatma Gandhi-XXI

Prof. Dr. Yogendra Yadav

Senior Gandhian Scholar, Professor, Editor and Linguist

Gandhi International Study and Research Institute, Jalgaon, Maharashtra, India

Contact No. – 09404955338, 09415777229

E-mail- dr.yadav.yogendra@gandhifoundation.net;

dr.yogendragandhi@gmail.com

Mailing Address- C- 29, Swaraj Nagar, Panki, Kanpur- 208020, Uttar Pradesh, India

Ahimsa and Mahatma Gandhi-XXI

Are you prepared to go with me so far? Does all that I say carry conviction? If so, violence should be eschewed from the innermost of our thoughts. But if you cannot go with me, do go your own way. If you can reach your goal in any other way, do so by all means. You will deserve my congratulations for I cannot in any case stand cowardice. Let no one say when I am gone that I taught the people to be cowards. If you think my ahimsa amounts to that, or leads you to that, you should reject it without hesitation. I would far rather that you died bravely dealing a blow and receiving a blow than died in abject terror. If the ahimsa of my dream is impossible, you can reject the creed rather than carry on the pretence of non-violence. Fleeing from battle palayanam is cowardice, and unworthy of a warrior. An armed fighter is known to have sought fresh arms as soon as he loses those in his possession or they lose their efficacy. He leaves the battle to get them. A non-violent warrior knows no leaving the battle. He rushes into the mouth of himsa, never even once harbouring an evil thought. If this ahimsa seems to you to be impossible, let us be honest with ourselves and say so, and give it up. 1

The fact is I have never placed unadulterated ahimsa before the country. If I had done so, there would have been complete Hindu- Muslim unity. No doubt I kept on saying there would be no swaraj without Hindu-Muslim unity, but I should have seen that there was no Hindu-Muslim unity because there was not that insistence on unadulterated ahimsa on the part of all, whether Hindu or Muslim. No wonder my new technique puzzles many. But I must go on. If I am right, the puzzles will be solved. 2 The path of those who worship ahimsa under all circumstances is straight. Such a person will not indulge in fighting even in self-defence. But he who does not have that strength has but to run away—that is, play the coward if he does not attack the attacker. Cowardice is worse than violence because cowards can never be non-violent. So such people should learn to defend themselves. Under its constitution members of the Parishad can be said to be wedded to non-violence. But here such ahimsa is of no use. A person who has full faith in non-violence should be a thousand times more fearless than an armed man. Such fearlessness is not gained by joining some organization. Hence every member of the Parishad should find an independent way for himself. It is the duty of every believer in ahimsa to see that cowardice is not propagated in the name of non-violence. So we must frankly tell the common people that we are unable to guide them. It is not proper that they should look to us. If they can independently think of non-violent ways they will not ask us and if they do ask us we should give them only guidance that they should not be weak under any circumstances. They should learn to deal with the attacker. It is possible that if they observe restraint and if a handful of us can manifest true ahimsa, the attacker too may turn to ahimsa. 3

For me, it is true, as I have often declared, ahimsa comes before swaraj. I would not care to get power through anarchy and red ruin, among other things, because I want freedom and power even for the least among the people. This can only be when freedom is won through non-violence. In the other case the weak must go to the wall, only the physically strong and fit will remain to seize and enjoy power. But you too cannot help putting ahimsa before everything else if you really mean business. Ahimsa must be placed before everything else while it is professed. Then alone it becomes irresistible. Otherwise it will only be an empty hulk, a thing without potency or power. A soldier fights with an irresistible strength when he has blown up his bridges, burnt his boats. Even so it is with a soldier of ahimsa. 4

It was also advised in order to pave the way for an honourable understanding with the authorities and to educate the people in the true way of ahimsa. These objects have still to be worked for. Here my new light, which I seem to see dimly, enables me to tender advice which, but for the light, I would perhaps not have been able to give with as much confidence as now. If the leaders have active ahimsa in them, they must cultivate a belief in the perfect possibility and necessity of such approach. And if they have that belief, the way will surely be open to them. In my own person, it is well known, I have always acted on that principle. In making such an approach it would be necessary to lower the key of our note. Our aim must remain what it is, but we must be prepared to negotiate for less than the whole so long as it is unmistakably of the same kind and has in it inherent possibility of expansion. I have found that nowhere, with the only exception of Aundh, are the Princes ready to part with all the power in favour of the people. Nor is the Paramount Power anxious for the people in the States to receive full responsible government. If I interpret its mind correctly, assuming that an institution can have a mind, it would be sorry if any State of importance copied the example of Aundh. But, what is most important of all, the States people themselves, as a mass, are nowhere prepared to pay the price. There is no mistaking the awakening that has taken place in the States. But it is not enough for the great purpose to be attained. It will be well to recognize this fact. In aiming beyond our capacity we are likely to lose all. I would give much to have in all the States a reign of law instead of the reign of a person or persons, however well-meaning they may be.

I can then see my way to build up responsible government on the solid foundation. But responsible government, which is only a gift without the will and the power of the people behind it, will be a mere paper responsibility, hardly worth the paper on which it may be printed. If the people do not take it up whole-heartedly, it is proof enough for me that they have no ahimsa in them, or not the ahimsa of my conception, or, say, they have no confidence in the present leadership. For me there is no other test but what I have ever put before the nation since 1920. The new light tells me that I must not weaken as I have done before in exacting the discipline I have mentioned. I can quite clearly see my way to advise civil disobedience wherever the conditions mentioned are amply fulfilled. That civil disobedience will be individual but in terms of ahimsa far more effective than any mass civil disobedience of the past. I must own that the past movements have been more or less tainted. I have no regret for them for I knew no better then. I had the sense and humility to retrace my steps whenever I discovered blunders. Hence the nation has gone forward from step to step. But the time has come for a radical change in the direction indicated. 5

As to the great question raised by you, my reading of Gita and interpretation of ahimsa is different from yours. I do not believe that killing in war can never be done without anger or zest. As I believe in unadulterated ahimsa I am groping as to India’s duty. I am shirking the national solution. I discuss without coming to a decision. My own individual conduct is determined. But I quite agree with you that national can be exactly the opposite. My present mood is to ask the Working Committee to decide for itself. It was not without cause that God prompted me to cease even to remain a four-anna member of the Congress. Hence there is no moral obligation on me to give an opinion. At the same time if I felt the call, I should not hesitate to announce my opinion. As it is I am praying for light. 6

For me if ahimsa is not applicable to all walks of life, it is no use. My experiments therefore must have that end in view. I may correct myself a thousand times but I am not likely to give up an experiment in which visible results have been attained. This earthly life is a blend of the soul and the body, spirit and matter. We know the soul only through the body and so shall we know true ahimsa through its action in the daily life. 7

In theory, if there is sufficient non-violence developed in any single person, he should be able to discover the means of combating violence, no matter how widespread or severe, within his jurisdiction. I have repeatedly admitted my imperfections. I am no example of perfect ahimsa. I am evolving. Such ahimsa as has been developed in me has been found enough to cope with situations that have hitherto arisen. But today I feel helpless in the face of the surrounding violence. There was a penetrating article in the statesman on my Rajkot statement. The editor had therein contended that the English had never taken our movement to be true Satyagraha, but being practical people they had allowed the myth to continue though they had known it to be a violent revolt. It was none the less so because the rebels had no arms. I have quoted the substance from memory.

When I read the article, I felt the force of the argument. Though I had intended the movement to be pure non-violent resistance, as I look back upon the happenings of those days, there was undoubtedly violence among the resisters. I must own that had I been perfectly tuned to the music of ahimsa, I would have sensed the slightest departure from it and my sensitiveness would have rebelled against any discord in it. It seems to me that the united action of the Hindus and the Muslims blinded me to the violence that was lurking in the breasts of many. The English who are trained diplomats and administrators are accustomed to the line of least resistance, and when they found that it was more profitable to conciliate a big organization than to crush it by extensive frightfulness, they yielded to the extent that they thought was necessary. It is, however, my conviction that our resistance was predominantly non-violent in action and will be accepted as such by the future historian. As a seeker of truth and non-violence, however, I must not be satisfied with mere action if it is not from the heart. I must declare from the house-tops that the non-violence of those days fell far short of the non-violence as I have so often defined.

Non-violent action without the co-operation of the heart and the head cannot produce the intended result. The failure of our imperfect ahimsa is visible to the naked eye. Look at the feud that is going on between Hindus and Muslims. Each is arming for the fight with the other. The violence that we had harboured in our breasts during the non-co-operation days is now recoiling upon ourselves. The violent energy that was generated among the masses, but was kept under check in the pursuit of a common objective, has now been let loose and is being used among and against ourselves. The same phenomenon is discernible, though in a less crude manner, in the dissension among Congressmen themselves and the use of forcible methods that the Congress Ministers are obliged to adopt in running the administrations under their charge. This narrative clearly shows that the atmosphere is surcharged with violence. I hope it also shows that non-violent mass movement is impossibility unless the atmosphere is radically changed. To blind one’s eyes to the events happening around us is to court disaster.

It has been suggested to me that I should declare mass civil disobedience and all internal strife will cease, Hindus and Muslims will compose their differences, Congressmen will forget mutual jealousies and fights for power. My reading of the situation is wholly different. If any mass movement is undertaken at the present moment in the name of nonviolence, it will resolve itself into violence largely unorganized and organized in some cases. It will bring discredit on the Congress, spell disaster for the Congress struggle for independence and bring ruin to many a home. This may be a wholly untrue picture born of my weakness. If so, unless I shed that weakness, I cannot lead a movement which requires great strength and resolution. But if I cannot find an effective, purely non-violent method, outbreak of violence seems to be a certainty. The people demand self-expression. They are not satisfied with the constructive programme prescribed by me and accepted almost unanimously by the Congress. As I have said before, the imperfect response to the constructive programme is itself proof positive of the skin-deep nature of the nonviolence of Congressmen. But if there is an outbreak of violence, it would not be without cause. We are yet far from the independence of our dream.

The irresponsibility of the Centre, which eats up 80 per cent of the revenue, grinds down the people and thwarts their aspirations, is daily proving more and more intolerable. There is a growing consciousness of the terrible autocracy of the majority of the States. I admit my responsibility for the suspension of civil resistance in several States. This has resulted in demoralization both among the people and the Princes. The people have lost nerve and feel that all is lost. The demoralization among the Princes consists in their thinking that now they have nothing to fear from their people, nothing substantial to grant. Both are wrong. The result does not dismay me. In fact I had foretold the possibility of these results when I was discussing with the Jaipur workers the advisability of suspending the movement, even though it was well circumscribed with rules and restrictions. The demoralization among the people shows that there was not non-violence in thought and word, and therefore when the intoxication and excitement of jail-going and the accompanying demonstrations ceased they thought that the struggle was over.

The Princes came to the hasty conclusion that they could safely consolidate their autocracy by adopting summary measures against the resisters and placating the docile element by granting eye-wash reforms. Both the people and the Princes might have reacted in the right Manner the people by recognizing the correctness of my advice and calmly generating strength and energy by quiet and determined constructive effort, and the Princes by seizing the opportunity afforded by suspension, of doing justice for the sake of justice and granting reforms that would satisfy the reasonable but advanced section among their people. This could only happen, if they recognized the time spirit. It is neither too late for the people nor the Princes. In this connection I may not omit the Paramount Power. There are signs of the Paramount Power repenting of the recent declarations about the freedom to the Princes to grant such reforms to their people as they chose. There are audible whispers that the Princes may not take those declarations literally. It is an open secret that the Princes dare not do anything that they guess is likely to displease the Paramount Power.

They may not even meet persons whom the Paramount Power may not like them to meet. When there is this tremendous influence exercised over the Princes, it is but natural to hold the Paramount Power responsible for the unadulterated autocracy that reins supreme in many States. So if violence breaks out in this unfortunate land, the responsibility will have to be shared by the Paramount Power, the Princes, and above all by Congressmen. The first two have never claimed to be non-violent. Their power is frankly derived from and based on the use of violence. But the Congress has since 1920 adopted non-violence as its settled policy and has undoubtedly striven to act up to it. But as Congressmen never had non-violence in their hearts, they must reap the fruit of the defect, however unintentional it was. At the crucial moment the defect has come to the surface and the defective method does not seem to meet the situation. Non-violence is never a method of coercion, it is one of conversion. We have failed to convert the Princes; we have failed to convert the English administrators. It is no use saying that it is impossible to persuade persons willingly to part with their power. I have claimed that Satyagraha is a new experiment. It will be time to pronounce it a failure when Congressmen have given it a genuine trial. Even a policy, if it is honestly pursued, has to be pursued with all one’s heart. We have not done so. Hence Congressmen have to convert themselves before the Paramount Power and the Princes can be expected to act justly. But if the Congressmen can or will go no further than they have done in the direction of non-violence, and if the Paramount Power and the Princes do not voluntarily and selfishly do the right thing, the country must be prepared for violence, unless the new technique yields a new mode of non-violent action which will become an effective substitute for violence as a way of securing redress of wrongs. The fact that violence must fail will not prevent its outbreak. Mere constitutional agitation will not do. 8

References: